It could be also a form of social segregation you're experiencing. For example, people charged with terrorism acts nowadays are found mainly in extremist religious circles and extremist right wing anti-government circles. (In the 1960s/1970s it would be extremist left-youth and extremist black-emancipation circles) The background of people in prison is often a weak economical-social position coupled with bad childhood experiences or psychological problems. If you do not grow up in these social circles (or you've been out of them for a long time) you just won't interact with people in prison or that are charged as terrorist.
That does not mean that these reports aren't exaggerated -- I often wonder about the agenda of these journalists/news outlets--, but it does neither mean you're anecdotal experience is un-biased in measuring the situation.
Where's the evidence that what happened to JotForms was a malicious act designed to shut them down? From what has been made public, it was most likely a blunder. Mistakes and oversights happen.
> I often wonder about the agenda of these journalists/news outlets
Headlines sell.
> That does not mean that these reports aren't exaggerated.
Out of the 300 million people living here in the US, half on the edge, I'd say if the sentiment you're trying to protect was even remotely true, every other person would know someone that's been affected by the police state.
> but it does neither mean you're anecdotal experience is un-biased in measuring the situation.
If my lack of terrorist friends makes me anecdotal, then you've already formed a seriously biased view of the US.
Similar to yours :-) I don't have any family, friends, acquaintances, neighbors, or even connections to those people in jail or branded as terrorist. At the same time I do know that there are a lot of people in jail.
Similarly, I don't know any poor people. Or any people with serious mental problems. Or people living off of welfare. Or religious people. Yet there are a lot of those. Does that mean that all the reports on these groups and their problems are exaggerated?
Which is exactly why we should be concerned about the removal of longstanding checks and balances designed to catch such mistakes before they do damage.
Judges aren't perfect either, but requiring the government to have to convince a judge of its case before shutting down someone's business is still a very important piece of due process.
You can claim your DUI was a mistake, a blunder, an oversight on your part, but that won't save you from a conviction. There apparently seem to be no such consequences when the government decides to shut down and possibly kill a business by suspending the domain.
That does not mean that these reports aren't exaggerated -- I often wonder about the agenda of these journalists/news outlets--, but it does neither mean you're anecdotal experience is un-biased in measuring the situation.